Whichever side you are on we have to agree that science is divided... right?
but... which is worse?
Too much CO2 or not enough CO2?
IMHO: A surplus can be controlled by limiting and capturing carbon emissions. A deficiency will make it difficult for oxygen producing plant life to survive, and may be irreversible - almost everybody agrees that we have a finite supply of fossil fuels. CO2 feeds plant life so if we get a deficiency, planting trees will be futile as they will starve.
but... which is worse?
Too much CO2 or not enough CO2?
IMHO: A surplus can be controlled by limiting and capturing carbon emissions. A deficiency will make it difficult for oxygen producing plant life to survive, and may be irreversible - almost everybody agrees that we have a finite supply of fossil fuels. CO2 feeds plant life so if we get a deficiency, planting trees will be futile as they will starve.